Testimony on Criteria For Failing School Districts
28 February 2001
Senate Education Committee
Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Sister Monica Kostielney, President and Chief Executive Officer, of the Michigan Catholic Conference.
The Michigan Catholic Conference is the public policy voice for the Catholic Church in this state.
Thank you for this opportunity to offer our reflections on criteria that can be used to define a “failing” school district.
As you may know, the Catholic Church is deeply committed to education. Indeed, education has been a vital mission of the Church in Michigan since 1803 when Fr. Gabriel Richard founded the first Catholic School at St. Anne’s Parish in Detroit. In fact, that was the first school of any kind in this state.
In Michigan today, the Catholic Church runs or sponsors 345 schools, educating some 92,000 students. These schools employ more than 5,000 teachers and administrators across our state.
What also drives the Church’s concern regarding education policy, is the fact that 75% of Catholic school age children attend government/public run schools. Quality education is not only the prime building block upon which a successful society and economy is built, it is also a key component in what makes a whole person. The basic civil right to a quality education helps ensure the inherent dignity of each and every human being. Education reform must begin and end with the interests of children as its sole focus.
Policymakers must go beyond looking at repairing systems of education and look toward creating environments where learning is possible, where every child is respected for his/her basic human dignity and value and where intervention in unsuccessful institutions is swift and immediate.
To look at failure in the education process is to see children who are hurt. Failure of school districts to focus effectively on the needs of children does not only affect the children who attend schools in a particular district, but also children who attend alternative schools in that area, and, children across the state.
Quantifying a “failing” school district is difficult, as I am sure you well know from the last three weeks of testimony. The following five factors should be considered in evaluating the success of a school district. By no means do any of these factors individually give a clear picture of the success or failure of a school district. Instead they are illustrative of evaluative measures to assess if the school district is doing an adequate job in being “child-centered” in its education mission.
- Parent Satisfaction. This notion is so elementary and is yet so difficult to get your hands on. Parental involvement is the single most important element of any school enterprise. It drives the performance of administration, staff and students. Can the legislature “incentivize” parental involvement in their children’s schools much like it has created monetary incentives for students to take the MEAP test? Maybe, but would it be the correct tract to take? Probably not. What may assist in measurement of a school’s achievement is an annual survey of parents that measures their level of satisfaction in how their child is progressing both academically and socially. The parental satisfaction measure would provide an individual school with a tool to see how it is meeting with the expectations of the people it serves. This information could be useful in making self-assessment of the schools goals, but also would provide valuable information and a track record to those outside of the individual school community. Is this enough? In our Catholic schools, parental satisfaction is measured by parents’ feet. If they are unsatisfied, they walk away and take their tuition dollars with them. Many parents do not have the option to vote with their feet. A resounding theme of these hearings has been that choice works. Parents with options are parents that are eventually satisfied because they are able to do what is best for their children. Again the central focus is on the child.
- Graduation Rates. This is a measure that must be part of the calculus in evaluating schools and school districts. The central purpose of an educational institution is to provide the ability to matriculate to the next level. This “self-evident” measure should be set relatively high if the goal is to measure success or failure. At this time I cannot offer a “magic” number that represents a bar that must be met. The methodology used in the determination of graduation rates must be consistent, accurate and made public in order to establish true reform criteria.
- Student Test Scores. MEAP results are an indicator of what is being taught and how curriculum should be adjusted to meet certain agreed upon benchmarks created by the state of Michigan. The test is criterion-based. Another barometer, which I would submit is more accurate and predictive of student abilities, is the nationally referenced norm-based tests. These tests are given in all of our Catholic schools and provide teachers and administrators measurements of where their students stand in relation to students throughout the country. Because they are norm-referenced, the burden of “teaching to the test” so commonly found with MEAP testing, is lessened and the results of the test give an accurate measure of the level of student achievement because the comparison is nationwide.
- Teacher Competency/Testing. Our knowledge base is doubling every five years. The only way to be certain of a teacher’s competency in their subject matter is to have regular testing of teachers in their academic subjects. Michigan does have a teacher testing law. That law, however, accounts for only those who began teaching after 1992 or, about one-third of all teachers, and that test is required only once for their certification. Teacher testing would give parents and administrators the information they need to assess the competency of their teachers. How teachers in a particular school or district fair on these tests would be a determinate of failure.
- How Districts Educate Disadvantaged Students. It has been said that the measure of a just society is how it treats the poorest of the poor.
That same standard must also be applied to education. How are the most disadvantaged students being educated? Is funding used properly and effectively to provide services for special education students? Are students with needs being identified? Does federal Title money follow the child? Are students most in need receiving the best instruction possible from the most qualified of teachers? Do we see academic and social progress from month to month and year to year with federal title monies and with increased state special education spending?
All of these questions must be analyzed and measurements set to determine if the state and its school districts are truly serving the best interests of the child and truly living up to its charge to educate all children. If a just society is to be measured by how it treats the poorest of its poor, then a just education structure must also be measured by how it assists those with the greatest learning difficulties.
What can be done to create learning environments in under-achieving schools? The myriad of possibilities is endless. I would suggest that measures be established using the factors I have previously stated. I would also advocate that this Committee takes a look at what a successful school looks like. We are quite proud of the success of our Catholic schools throughout the state. Yes, we encounter some of the same problems that our fellow educators in the government/public run schools face. However, where we are successful, several factors play a role.
- Parental involvement
- Site-based management
- Curriculum that is value-laden
- Single compelling mission
A focus on children must lead to the expansion of options for schooling, especially for those most in need. Ultimately, it is the legislature that is going to have to come to the realization that each individual child has worth and ability to learn. This child has a basic human dignity that must be respected from his earliest education formation. Inherent in this notion is that not every child fits into a traditional government/public run school structure. If your solutions to improving “failing” school districts do not include opening the door to greater choice for parents then this body will be committing a disservice to Michigan’s citizens. We can open the door to educational justice only when we recognize that parents, and not the state, has the ultimate responsibility for educating their children.
Your Committee has been charged with an important task. Education is the surest way out of poverty. Please carefully deliberate all of the testimony and proposals that have been presented. Through your deliberation, I would urge you to keep the well being of the individual child as your focal point. If the child remains the focus of the legislation that comes forth from this effort, you will have truly accomplished a worthwhile objective and our children as well as our state will be better off for it.
Thank you for your time today. If you have any questions, I would be happy to try and answer them.
